Marc Perkel Rantz

I would have been far better off if I'd married my cat.

The people who are interested in expanding the definition of "marriage", no matter how disturbed and vile they may seem, are simply acting based on what they believe will make them happy. Some of them are just weirdoes trying to show off, yes, but when the dust settles it becomes apparent that many of them truly are no less committed than typical heterosexual couples. Historically, people who desire to do the things that make them happy, no matter how unusual but as long as those things do not hurt anyone, become better and more integrated members of the society when they are granted those freedoms. This empowers people to decide for themselves what makes them happy – a precedent that leads to better quality of life for all, even the least deviant among us.

Based on this model, same-sex couples, adult siblings, groups of more than two adults, and whatever other arrangements that can be imagined, should not be oppressed by denial of right to live together, to give consent in sexual behavior, and to unofficially call themselves whatever the heck they wish. Thus, without question: it's very wrong for the Government, the Church, or any other power to look under the people’s sheets and count the number of penises and vaginas, and nitpick if the count isn't what it wants. Any power that does that practices unmerited oppression. But this isn't as much of a problem in the modern times, and consenting adults can do whatever makes them happy... except one thing: a declaration of "marriage".

"Marriage" is a very special thing to the religious institutions that invented it. It makes the practitioners of those religions very angry when this term is used outside their definition. Frankly, I think that is more childish than the desire to marry a dot-matrix printer: after all, how hard is it to just look the other way? Truly, how does it hurt a married couple of highly polished Catholic values if other people, in other belief systems, get "married" on their outlandish terms? Well, apparently it does, and this reflects very poorly on those established religions: it shows just how uncompassionate and morally shallow they are. If the history of computers was like history of religion, everything Charles Babbage didn't himself invent would be rejected as sin. But, nonetheless, "marriage" is foremost a religious concept, and let dominant religions control it as they please. Love and commitment does not require "marriage". By unnaturally controlling this concept, the rightwing fanatics render it morally meaningless.

But, now, here's the problem: the secondary use of "marriage" is a legal and discriminating distinction enforced by the government. It is a sad example of how the views of a shrinking majority are unquestionably enforced by the government and are held in place despite their flaws. Millions of families that don't fit this definition of "marriage" are discriminated against financially and in many other ways, but perhaps the most important issue in this is the right to adopt children. Due to overpopulation and poverty in the world, adoption will become an ever more popular and sensible alternative, even for couples biologically able to have their own children. Yes, adults who adapt children should be thoroughly reviewed for financial, psychological, and other criteria of competence to be parents, but homosexuality or polygamy isn't a in itself a deterrent of being worthy parents. A "Children on the Brink" census in 2000 estimated that there are 34.7 million orphans in the world, most living in poverty that we cannot even imagine. It would be in the best interest of those children, and of society in general, if traditional definition of family didn't prevent many of those children from being adopted.

There are all sorts of families out there: unions both sexual and unsexual in nature, involving different numbers of people in different circumstances. All of those families deserve to be judged not by whether they fit the traditional idea of a "marriage" but by the content of their characters. All those families deserve equal rights and opportunities with no prejudice. They need and deserve for Governments to create a legal definition of family that isn't limited to religious ideals. Fine, don't call it "Marriage", if that word is off limits. Call it a "Civil Union". Call it a "Declaration of Family". Call it a "Group of People Sharing a Household, Who Are Seriously Committed to Each-other". Call it by a number of the legal code that defines it (as is the case with "401k"). Call it what you will. But giving untraditional families equal rights is simply the right thing to do.

If someone can define marriage, then we can make accurate assertions about what it is. But like everything, defining something is an endless journey towards nowhere until you squash all other opinions through some sort of genocide.

Your position would be fine if marriage were only considered a license to raise a family. In our society, however, marriage has come to mean more than that, and there are numerous legal rights that are afforded only to married couples.

Look, as an example, at only one of these rights: the right to family health insurance. If you say that you would grant male/female couples who do not plan on raising families civil union status, would you include the right to family health insurance to these couples? What about hospital visitation rights, tax benefits, property survivorship rights, and countless other rights that have traditionally been afforded to married couples?

Personally, I don't need the recognition of the government to validate my fifteen year long committed same-sex relationship. What I do need, however, is the same rights and benefits given to our heterosexual counterparts. In a country which is based on freedom and equality, how can we justify giving there rights to only part of our population?

So you should not be allowed to marry your brother, any more than you should be allowed to marry your sister. And this is true whether you want to have children with your sister or not. And you should not be allowed to marry barnyard animals, robots, or multiple partners. The issue is not one of redefining love or relationships. The issue is one of civil rights. How can we continue to justify allowing the rights associated with civil marriage to only a portion of the population?

Marc,

I'm not sure I'm following you here..."is really just a bad property agreement where if the relationship fails then two lawyers get to keep your property." In no-fault divorces, at least, both parties to the marriage agree to the equitable distribution of property, hence why it's called no-fault. And regardless of how the divorce is filed (fault/no fault), I've never heard of one single divorce lawyer receiving any property from a marriage.

Here's another fun quote from you:

"As many of you know - I oppose Gay marriage. But I'm not strongly opposed to it."

Um, ok...and that renders you what? Slightly convincted of your beliefs?

This coupled with all of your posts regarding not just the phoniness of the Nick Berg video but now that it was actually Americans who murdered him, forces me to tell you: I think you're kinda nutty, guy.